Run from the Cure

Cannabis Cures Cancer – “Run From The Cure” The Rick Simpson Story

(Google Video) After a serious head injury in 1997, Rick Simpson sought relief from his medical condition through the use of medicinal hemp oil. When Rick discovered that the hemp oil (with its high concentration of T.H.C.) cured cancers and other illnesses, he tried to share it with as many people as he could free of charge. When the story went public, the long arm of the law snatched the medicine – leaving potentially thousands of people without their cancer treatments – and leaving Rick with unconsitutional charges of possessing and trafficking marijuana!

The best, and worst, laundry detergents with 1,4-dioxane contamination

Saturday, May 22, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff

(NaturalNews) One of the major issues being tackled by consumer watchdog groups this year is the presence of 1,4-dioxane, a synthetic petrochemical carcinogen, in consumer products. Since hair care products, cleaning formulas and laundry detergents are all susceptible to containing this toxic chemical byproduct, which is not listed on product labels, David Steinman from the Green Patriot Working Group (GPWG) began a study in 2007 to see which consumer products are the worst offenders. This year, his organization along with the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), released the results of a portion of the study conducted last year on laundry detergents.

When cleaning products and detergents are processed using ethoxylation, a cheap technique that lessens the severity of the harsher ingredients, 1,4-dioxane is created. Since it is considered a byproduct of ethylene oxide reacting with other ingredients, 1,4-dioxane is technically considered a contaminant and thus does not have to be included on product labeling. As a result, consumers are largely unaware of its presence in major household products.

For the study, Steinman evaluated 20 different laundry detergents from both conventional and “natural” brands. Evoxa, an independent, third-party laboratory that is highly respected for its rigorous methods and high standards, conducted all product testing. The results are as follows:

Conventional brands:
1. Tide (P&G) – 55 parts per million (ppm)
2. Ivory Snow Gentle (P&G) – 31 ppm
3. Tide Free (P&G) – 29 ppm
4. Purex (Dial Corp.) – 25 ppm
5. Gain 2X Ultra (P&G) – 21 ppm
6. Cheer BrightClean Detergent (P&G) – 20 ppm
7. Era 2X Ultra (P&G) – 14 ppm
8. Arm & Hammer (Church & Dwight Co.) – 5.0 ppm
9. Wisk 2X Ultra (Sun Products Corp.) – 3.9 ppm
10. Woolite Complete Detergent (Reckitt Benckiser) – 1.3 ppm
11. All laundry detergent (Unilever) – 0.6 ppm
12. Dreft powdered detergent (P&G) – non-detectable (ND)
13. Sun Burst (Sun Products Corp.) – ND

“Natural” brands:
1. Planet Ultra Liquid laundry detergent – 6.1 ppm
2. Mrs. Meyers laundry detergent – 1.5 ppm
3. Clorox Green Works Natural laundry detergent – ND
4. Ecos laundry detergent (Earth Friendly Products) – ND
5. Life Tree Laundry Liquid – ND
6. Method Squeaky Green laundry detergent – ND
7. Seventh Generation Free & Clear laundry detergent – ND

Of the products detected, P&G products came up the highest in 1,4-dioxane levels, as did most of the conventional brands. Of the natural brands tested, only two were found to contain 1,4-dioxane, and in levels far below the average conventional brand. While not all available brands were tested, it is clear from the results that consumers need to be wary of most conventional brands. They also must perform due diligence in verifying that their “natural” brand of choice is truly free of 1,4-dioxane as well.

The 1,4-dioxane found in laundry detergent is particularly harmful in the fact that the chemical binds easily to water and remains there. Even after water containing the chemical has been purified and filtered, low levels have been detected, indicating that it is not easily removed from water. Numerous water supplies across the country have been found to be tainted with 1,4-dioxane.

Of the 80,000 known chemicals, only 200 are tested by the EPA; 1,4-dioxane is not one of the ones tested. Average aggregate exposure to 1,4-dioxane is unknown since it is found in numerous consumer care products. Because it is a known carcinogen that is implicated in causing cancer, liver disease and other serious problems, it is important to avoid it whenever possible.

OCA has prepared a Personal Care and Cleaning Products Safety Guide outlining which consumer products are safe and free of 1,4-dioxane and which ones are not. Categories include dishwashing soap, hand soap, all-purpose soap, laundry detergents, household cleaners, body washes and shampoos, conditioners, facial cleansers, lotions, sunscreens and deodorants.

CNN Exclusive! Mobile phone Industry-funded study finds no link between mobile phones and brain cancer

This just came in from BSC, who has a real knack for rearranging CNN articles so that they make sense…

Maybe because I didn’t drink my fluoride/hfc/aspartame/prozac/mercury/toxic sludge slurpee this morning, I’m seeing things a bit too clearly.  But can anyone tell me how this is not a conflict of interest?

“The study was funded in part by the cell phone industry. Several of the researchers analyzing the data acknowledged that they received money from the mobile phone industry.”

Susan G. Komen Buckets for the Cure program exposed: The buckets you buy make no difference

Wednesday, April 28, 2010
by Mike Adams
NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) The whole push behind the new “Buckets for the Cure” pinkwashing campaign by Komen for the Cure is to convince people to buy more fried chicken (which is laced with MSG, by the way) in order to “end breast cancer forever.” (http://www.naturalnews.com/images/K…

)

But NaturalNews has learned that there is no relationship between how many buckets of chicken are purchased by consumers and how much money KFC donates to Komen for the Cure. Consumer purchases of fried chicken don’t raise money for anything!

As is stated directly on the Komen for the Cure promotional website, “Customer purchases of KFC buckets during the promotion will not directly increase the total contribution.” See the small print at the bottom of this screen capture: http://www.naturalnews.com/images/K…

And yet the Komen for the Cure website proudly proclaims, “Each bucket makes a difference. Help make the largest single donation to end breast cancer FOREVER.”

This is an outright lie. Each bucket you buy doesn’t make any difference at all, as is admitted on their own website. This is an organization promoting fried chicken as a cure for breast cancer and using deceptive language to imply that buying fried chicken raises money for ending cancer. But you have to read the small print to learn that’s not really true.

So we have layers of fraud upon fraud happening here:

Fraud #1) Eating fried chicken will cure cancer.

Fraud #2) Buying fried chicken will result in a monetary donation to Komen for the Cure.

Fraud #3) That Komen for the Cure will ever “end breast cancer FOREVER.”

These are all fraudulent marketing claims being made by the Susan G. Komen for the Cure non-profit, which is really a Big Pharma front group that causes breast cancer by irradiating women’s breasts with radiation machines (mammography).

In the United States today, companies that have promoted the health benefits of cherries or walnuts are threatened with arrest and prosecution by the FDA, and yet a cancer industry front group is now openly claiming that fried chicken will cure breast cancer — and they get away with it!

“Each bucket makes a difference,” they say. (http://www.naturalnews.com/images/K…

) And yet, in reality, customer purchases of buckets of chicken “do not increase the total contribution.”

Check out the “street talk” YouTube video by Jonathan Landsman which asks people on the street what they think about this idea of buying fried chicken to cure breast cancer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyvr…

Note that Komen for the Cure remains approved by the BBB and the Chamber of Commerce. And why not? If people eat more fried chicken laced with MSG, and then they end up in the hospital needing medical services, that’s good for the economy, right? What’s a little fraud as long as somebody’s making money?

Fast food is great for the incomes of hospitals, cancer centers and funeral homes, by the way. See my CounterThink cartoon, “Business is Booming” to learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/028587_s…

Hoxsey – How Healing Becomes A Crime

Bloodroot is an herb that grows wild in the Americas and has been used for thousands of years to remove skin growths, as an escharotic (necrotizing substance that causes an eschar, or a scab).

I recently removed a mole from my chest with minimal scarring using bloodroot paste.    In the course of my research I found that it’s an ingredient in other internal cancer treatments. There is some evidence that this plant preferentially kills cancerous, neoplastic cells over normal cells.

This documentary is about the Hoxley formula which aside from being used to treat skin cancers is also used internally.   I can’t vouch for any cancer treatment but this documentary suggests it has a high success rate, and based on my own experience with bloodroot there might be something to this…

Google Video description:

This documentary concerns Harry M. Hoxsey, the former coal miner whose family’s herbal recipe has brought about claims of a cancer cure. Starting in 1924 with his first clinic, he expanded to 17 states by the mid 1950s, along the way constantly battling organized medicine that labeled him a charlatan.

Hoxsey’s supporters point out he was the victim of arrests, or “quackdowns” spearheaded by the proponents of established medical practices. Interviews of patients satisfied with the results of the controversial treatment are balanced with physicians from the FDA and the AMA.

A clinic in Tijuana, Mexico claims an 80% success rate, while opponents are naturally skeptical. What is apparent is that cancer continues to be one of humankind’s more dreaded diseases, and that political and economic forces dominate research and development.

DCA (Dichloroacetate) shrinks tumors in rats, humans

University of Alberta Researcher Dr. Evangelos Michelakis has shown that DCA can shrink tumors in rats. But since there is no patent on this inexpensive drug, there is little interest from drug companies that stand to lose billions on their proprietary chemotherapy treatments.